• Garret A FitzGerald.
• From the Departments of Medicine and Pharmacology, Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
• Circ. Res. 2014 Mar 28;114(7):1156-61.

AbstractRandomized trials provide the gold standard evidence on which rests the decision to approve novel therapeutics for clinical use. They are large and expensive and provide average but unbiased estimates of efficacy and risk. Concern has been expressed about how unrepresentative populations and conditions that pertain in randomized trials might be of the real world, including concerns about the homogeneity of the biomedical and adherence characteristics of volunteers entered into such trials, the dose and constancy of drug administration and the mixture of additional medications that are restricted in such trials but might influence outcome in practice. A distinction has been drawn between trials that establish efficacy and those that demonstrate effectiveness, drugs that patients actually consume in the real world for clinical benefit. However, randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for establishing efficacy and the testing of effectiveness with less rigorous approaches is a secondary, albeit important consideration. Despite this, there is an appreciation that average results may conceal considerable interindividual variation in drug response, leading to a failure to appreciate clinical value or risk in subsets of patients. Thus, attempts are now being made to individualize risk estimates by modulating those derived from large randomized trials with the individual baseline risk estimates based on demographic and biological criteria-the individual Numbers Needed to Treat to obtain a benefit, such as a life saved. Here, I will consider some reasons why large phase 3 trials-by far the most expensive element of drug development-may fail to address the unmet medical needs, which should justify such effort and investment.

11 keywords...

hide…